Are you sure you're not driving a personal or political agenda with your mod privileges?

But that was a poll from last June about how well Farage was managing the job of leading UKIP (nothing about his popularity); but he has now resigned from that job so this poll no longer has any relevance

Farage is not even mentioned in the same July and August polls from the same organisation.

The same July poll forecasts UKIP getting only 8% of the votes in a future general election whereas the August poll shows only 6%; presumably reaction to Farage jumping ship?

Theresa May scored 58% in the August poll compared to the 38% "quite popular Farage" you mentioned!

At the moment, I am not aware of a particular lie he made. Tell me. The thing about lies is that they eventually get found out, and demand payment on their own. I couldn't possibly track every lie made, nor try to attain justice for all of them. I leave that to divine providence, unless it is something I can deal with right there and then. They all lie, don't they?

I would agree, a great many politicians lie, or are at least very economical with the truth.

Farage has distanced himself from the 350 million for the NHS, but only once it was too late, so in a sense he was perfectly happy to tolerate an untruth so long as that served his aim. To my mind this is very close to lying.

I take it that you would expect Trump (or Clinton) to distance himself from any statement by, for example by the KKK, expressing their support? I do.

He "fought" this battle in the UK, not in the EU Parliament, while cashing in a "fat EU bureaucrat salary". Oh, the irony.
This guy is so dubious/(shady, crook? I guess this is the word I'm looking for), I can't understand for the life of me how he made it in the UK politics. I mean, I have no illusions left about some people after a few years of EF, but still...

I would agree, a great many politicians lie, or are at least very economical with the truth.

Farage has distanced himself from the 350 million for the NHS, but only once it was too late, so in a sense he was perfectly happy to tolerate an untruth so long as that served his aim. To my mind this is very close to lying.

I take it that you would expect Trump (or Clinton) to distance himself from any statement by, for example by the KKK, expressing their support? I do.

What I've started to notice, which you kind of alluded to in the past, is that most people have a need to lie to themselves. They choose lies which allow them to fill gaps. It may be an emotional gap, perhaps a gap of responsibility, or for some psychological comfort. So in the marketplace of political ideas, there all kinds and assortments of lies being peddled for people to try on for size.

I'm not sure one can really go around debunking all those lies for all people on their behalf. Its like pulling a velvet pillow from underneath a sleeping man's head. We know they would get angry and then accuse you of trolling.

For Trump and Clinton, I doubt they would do any such thing just for the sake of integrity during an election. They might do it if they are sure there is a trade off between the votes they would otherwise gain and lose. Otherwise, they will try to ignore it.

What I've started to notice, which you kind of alluded to in the past, is that most people have a need to lie to themselves. They choose lies which allow them to fill gaps. It may be an emotional gap, perhaps a gap of responsibility, or for some psychological comfort. So in the marketplace of political ideas, there all kinds and assortments of lies being peddled for people to try on for size.

I'm not sure one can really go around debunking all those lies for all people on their behalf. Its like pulling a velvet pillow from underneath a sleeping man's head. We know they would get angry and then accuse you of trolling.

For Trump and Clinton, I doubt they would do any such thing just for the sake of integrity during an election. They might do it if they are sure there is a trade off between the votes they would otherwise gain and lose. Otherwise, they will try to ignore it.

Sort of.

I have stated here on EF and elsewhere that we are all responsible for the lies which we choose to believe. I am ok with that if people are aware that it is a choice, and that it is not a guarantee of any particular exclusively beneficial outcome.

What I mean by that is that if someone believes that by voting party X all will be perfect and there will be no negative effects whatsoever, then they are mistaken.

With few exceptions, the world isn't as simple as the shorthand that we all use to describe it. This applies most particularly to predictions about a future state of affairs which is as fluid and complex as politics.

From a practical standpoint, no, we cannot evaluate every single statement we or others make, and point out all fallacies. What we can do is keep an eye on how much we, or others, oversimplify what is actually very complex. If something takes a great deal of effort to believe, or no effort whatsoever then my radar generally shows a blip. There is a point where shorthand becomes gross misrepresentation.

Perhaps my concept of "truth", and therefore also of lies, is different. I have to admit that I sometimes use "truth" in a Platonic sense, sometimes Aristotelian, and sometimes even lyrically.

I don't hold to be the sole diviner of truth in any of those three senses: for more than 50 years I have doggedly held that Jaguars are the best cars, this in spite of a great many hours spent performing many difficult, expensive, repairs which would have been unnecessary with a different design, so I may well be too lyrical (or simply bloody minded), but I would hardly characterise this as a lie.

People are like that, fortunately.

__________________
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.

Anyway, let's close the Farage comments, it was a mere example, you seems to make it a scapegoat.
I remind that it's many many many GB citizen who have voted. They are responsible for that event full of opportunities (for the positive people).

Sometimes it is as simple as a preference, and we simply need to respect that. So long as it is admitted as so. But to go around and claim one should decide that for another, because they know better, I think is kind of offensive or oppressive.

Some people can't stand others having an opinion that counters theirs. They fill a need to stomp out opposing opinions, so they try to discredit that person. Whereas I do believe a diversity of opinions is valuable.

What I've started to notice, which you kind of alluded to in the past, is that most people have a need to lie to themselves. They choose lies which allow them to fill gaps. It may be an emotional gap, perhaps a gap of responsibility, or for some psychological comfort. So in the marketplace of political ideas, there all kinds and assortments of lies being peddled for people to try on for size.

I'm not sure one can really go around debunking all those lies for all people on their behalf. Its like pulling a velvet pillow from underneath a sleeping man's head. We know they would get angry and then accuse you of trolling.

For Trump and Clinton, I doubt they would do any such thing just for the sake of integrity during an election. They might do it if they are sure there is a trade off between the votes they would otherwise gain and lose. Otherwise, they will try to ignore it.

You're kidding right? The internet is chock full of people "debunking" lies (whether it's substantiated or not). People generally LOVE a good debunking and sticking it to the elite in a kind of "Ah-ha! Gotcha!" kind of way.

It's given rise to that shudderingly awful term "sheeple" if you're one of those who doesn't want to start delving into the murky world of conspiracy theories.

You're kidding right? The internet is chock full of people "debunking" lies (whether it's substantiated or not). People generally LOVE a good debunking and sticking it to the elite in a kind of "Ah-ha! Gotcha!" kind of way.

It's given rise to that shudderingly awful term "sheeple" if you're one of those who doesn't want to start delving into the murky world of conspiracy theories.

Something like the Alt-Right? That is exactly what we are seeing in the marketplace of political ideas, and snowflakes are complaining they can't stomache it. Its also why pollsters and pundits can't seem to pin down a lie or narrative that will stick, and then are surprised by election results.

The way I see it, in a marketplace, the value and quality of a product speaks for itself. If someone puts forth a weak product, don't blame the consumers, blame the product.

Something like the Alt-Right? That is exactly what we are seeing in the marketplace of political ideas, and snowflakes are complaining they can't stomache it. Its also why pollsters and pundits can't seem to pin down a lie or narrative that will stick, and then are surprised by election results.

The way I see it, in a marketplace, the value and quality of a product speaks for itself. If someone puts forth a weak product, don't blame the consumers, blame the product.

Trying to work out if the term "snowflake" makes me shudder more than "sheeple". Both put me in mind of a Daily Mail journo, fresh out of journo-school.

The following 2 users would like to thank Sandgrounder for this useful post:

Trying to work out if the term "snowflake" makes me shudder more than "sheeple". Both put me in mind of a Daily Mail journo, fresh out of journo-school.

I didn't take you for one, unless.... How else does one describe the ones who rebut with emotional shrillness to opinions they can't handle? The "indignant" perhaps? When I try to be politically correct.

I didn't take you for one, unless.... How else does one describe the ones who rebut with emotional shrillness to opinions they can't handle? The "indignant" perhaps? When I try to be politically correct.

Dunno - a rebuttal is a rebuttal, isn't it? And "emotional shrillness" isn't really an indication that the opinion can't be handled.

Everyone has got an indigence threshold, nobody's is wrong. It keeps us human and individual.

I didn't take you for one, unless.... How else does one describe the ones who rebut with emotional shrillness to opinions they can't handle? The "indignant" perhaps? When I try to be politically correct.

Why describe them at all?
Keep to the high ground and avoid personal comments?

Why describe them at all?
Keep to the high ground and avoid personal comments?

Marton, try to do a quick count of how many of your responses are directed at me rather than the point I make. This is one. I don't even bother responding to them as they tend to divert from the point. But its true that its much easier to convey a picture with a few words when I'm bored.

He "fought" this battle in the UK, not in the EU Parliament, while cashing in a "fat EU bureaucrat salary". Oh, the irony.
This guy is so dubious/(shady, crook? I guess this is the word I'm looking for), I can't understand for the life of me how he made it in the UK politics. I mean, I have no illusions left about some people after a few years of EF, but still...

And still keeps collecting his "fat EU bureaucrat salary" despite being "against" the EU and despite the Brexit vote. Wonder how long he plans to do that? Until article 50 is triggered or will he hang on until UK actually has formally left some 2 or 3 years down the road?

Compare with "Britain’s top official in the European Commission announced his resignation on 25 June.

Jonathan Hill, Britain’s European commissioner since 2014, said "it was not right that I should carry on ... as though nothing had happened.”"

The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:

And still keeps collecting his "fat EU bureaucrat salary" despite being "against" the EU and despite the Brexit vote. Wonder how long he plans to do that? Until article 50 is triggered or will he hang on until UK actually has formally left some 2 or 3 years down the road?

Compare with "Britain’s top official in the European Commission announced his resignation on 25 June.

Jonathan Hill, Britain’s European commissioner since 2014, said "it was not right that I should carry on ... as though nothing had happened.”"

He probably feels its money they've swindled from other countries anyway. And from the salary someone posted, we have low level managers that earn much more than that. I don't really think drawing that money for his position is really as damning.

Let's get to the meat of the matter. Could anyone point out the lies Farage have made, other than the NHS campaign which was covered?